Aaron Schock, Bill Owens in ethics scrutiny

The House Ethics Committee is considering whether to launch a formal probe of GOP Rep. Aaron Schock’s solicitation of a $25,000 donation from Majority Leader Eric Cantor for use in a brutal Republican-on-Republican primary.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog, interviewed Cantor (R-Va.) in the course of its investigation into Schock (Ill.), the majority leader’s office said Friday night. Cantor was not the subject of the investigation.

Text Size

-

+

reset

OCE investigated Schock and Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.), who was under investigation for a lobbyist-arranged trip to Taiwan in Dec. 2011. OCE recommended that the Ethics Committee appoint investigative subcommittees to handle the matters. The special subcommittees have subpoena power and can make recommendations to the full Ethics Committee on potential sanctions against a lawmaker or House aide.

The Schock incident centers on a $25,000 contribution by Cantor’s leadership fund, Every Republican Is Crucial (ERIC) PAC, to a super PAC called the Campaign for Primary Accountability. CPA ran ads in the bitter primary battle between Illinois Reps. Adam Kinzinger and Donald Manzullo, which Kinzinger won.

Schock and Cantor supported Kinzinger in the race. Cantor’s donation to CPA — which ran ads against other GOP incumbents this year — caused an uproar inside the House Republican Conference.

Cantor’s donation to CPA, first reported by Roll Call, was made at the request of Schock as a way to aid Kinzinger.

Several watchdog groups filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission against Schock, saying he violated the prohibition on lawmakers raising more than $5,000 for a super PAC.

But it was not known until today that OCE was investigating the Illinois Republican.

Schock’s campaign has spent more than $94,000 on defense attorneys, disclosure reports show.

A Schock aide said the Illinois Republican is hopeful the matter will be “resolved positively.”

“This is the next step in an ongoing process,” said Steve Dutton, Schock’s spokesman. “We remain confident that this matter will be resolved positively.”

The Owens issue received less attention.

ProPublica, in a story published by POLITICO, first reported the trip was planned and organized by lobbyists hired by the Chinese Culture University in Taiwan. According to House ethics rules, “Member and staff participation in officially-connected travel that is in any way planned, organized, requested, or arranged by a lobbyist is prohibited.”

After the ProPublica-POLITICO story was published, Owens repaid the cost of the $22,000-plus trip.

Owens has also shelled out more than $25,000 in campaign funds for defense attorneys handling his case, and owes nearly $24,000 more, disclosure records show.

Reps. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) and Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), the chairman and ranking member of the Ethics Committee, announced Friday night that the panel had given itself until Jan. 28 to decide whether to launch formal investigations of the two lawmakers.

Under House rules, once OCE makes a referral to the Ethics Committee asking for a formal probe, Ethics has 45 days to evaluate that request. The Ethics Committee can then extend that deadline for another 45 days, but it has to publicly announce it is conducting such a review at that time. That is what occurred Friday in the Schock and Owens’ cases.

If, after the 90-day review is completed and the Ethics Committee does not launch a probe, then the OCE report on the case is released.

In a statement from Owens, the New York Democrat said he and his wife, Jane, went on the expensive four-day trip to Taiwan seeking business investment for his upstate district and he was confident the Ethics Committee will clear him.

“This is the next step in the process and I expect that ultimately it will result in an affirmation of my position that the trip was undertaken in the quest for jobs for my constituents and was done with every intention to comply with all applicable rules,” Owens said. “I hold myself and my office to the highest of ethical standards. Which is why, in abundance of caution, I have already personally reimbursed the sponsor of the trip for the cost.”

Mr. Schock is pretty, dumb, and gay. That makes him a pretty dumb gay guy living in a closet at a Washington gym. I hope they find something at this ethics hearing and he ultimately is drummed out of office. Then the hillbillies of Peoria can find another moron to represent them and Aaron can finally go dancing on Halsted Street in Chicago.

Mr. Schock is pretty, dumb, and gay. That makes him a pretty dumb gay guy living in a closet at a Washington gym. I hope they find something at this ethics hearing and he ultimately is drummed out of office. Then the hillbillies of Peoria can find another moron to represent them and Aaron can finally go dancing on Halsted Street in Chicago.

Mr. Schock is pretty, dumb, and gay. That makes him a pretty dumb gay guy living in a closet at a Washington gym. I hope they find something at this ethics hearing and he ultimately is drummed out of office. Then the hillbillies of Peoria can find another moron to represent them and Aaron can finally go dancing on Halsted Street in Chicago.